Windowblinds is a HOG!
Monday, December 23, 2002 by SpeedTek | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
This is a gorgeous program, it can do so much to the boring old windows interface, but I have to say it is gone from my system. WHen I can run COSBI benchmarks 5 times faster without this program installed, it's gotta go. Has anybody else seen this, or have I missed something? Is there a setting that will run this program without using up all the resources on your comp? (Style XP does)
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #2 Monday, December 23, 2002 4:11 AM
Reply #2 Monday, December 23, 2002 4:11 AM
WB is far more speedy than the original XP GUI. Windows open and close about 50% faster on my pc. I would suggest you look at your pc setup if you're having problems. Forget StyleXP, it's just a hack and not a very good one.
kith
Reply #3 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:29 AM
Reply #3 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:29 AM
SpeedTek,
To reply quite frankly, you are wrong, for the most part. This has been debated many times and it has been shown over and over again that WB is quite fast if not faster than Luna or its variations with StyleXP. Because WB is so much more robust in it's features it can be a hog, when specific skins are used. I hate to pick on a single artist, but I like his stuff so much I hope he won't mind! These are some heavy skins you will most likely see a performannce hit on:
https://www.wincustomize.com/skins.asp?searchtext=mercury&sort=updatedate&order=Descending&library=1&optWinXPSupport=on
Now if you try the Win2K Extended vs. the rest of those you should see a remarkable difference in performance.
If you are really interested in seeing how fast or slow or doing performance queries here are a few links:
https://www.stardock.com/products/xpbench/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/skinbench/
Come back with some facts to support your argument...
To reply quite frankly, you are wrong, for the most part. This has been debated many times and it has been shown over and over again that WB is quite fast if not faster than Luna or its variations with StyleXP. Because WB is so much more robust in it's features it can be a hog, when specific skins are used. I hate to pick on a single artist, but I like his stuff so much I hope he won't mind! These are some heavy skins you will most likely see a performannce hit on:
https://www.wincustomize.com/skins.asp?searchtext=mercury&sort=updatedate&order=Descending&library=1&optWinXPSupport=on
Now if you try the Win2K Extended vs. the rest of those you should see a remarkable difference in performance.
If you are really interested in seeing how fast or slow or doing performance queries here are a few links:
https://www.stardock.com/products/xpbench/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/skinbench/
Come back with some facts to support your argument...
kith
Reply #4 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:45 AM
Reply #4 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:45 AM
As a side note I did try and dig up something on this Cosbi thing. If it is the same program from Van's Hardware it seems it is no longer available for questionable reasons.... 
Do a Google search if you need more info!
If not let us know where it is hosted and I would be happy to give it a try.
Do a Google search if you need more info!
If not let us know where it is hosted and I would be happy to give it a try.
YMark
Reply #5 Monday, December 23, 2002 11:03 AM
Reply #5 Monday, December 23, 2002 11:03 AM
Bill...and others.... just because a program is "faster" doesn't mean it isn't a resource hog. I'm not saying WB is or isn't a resource hog, but your argument that WB is "quite fast" or "speedy" is meaningless against a debate about resources.
SpeedTek
Reply #6 Monday, December 23, 2002 11:12 AM
Reply #6 Monday, December 23, 2002 11:12 AM
Yes, COSBI was originally developed by Van Smith. No, he no longer has it available for download on his site. Mainly he was being harrassed by Intel fanboys so much and receiving threats that he pulled out completely. Problem was, the COSBI benchmark suite reveals the P4 for what it is and Intel was not happy about it, but that's a tale for a different message board. I have a copy of it at home and I'll post it on my website this evening in the downloads section if anyone is interested. The address is http:/members.shaw.ca/need4speed
As far as facts to support my argument go, by uninstalling windowblinds (it didn't seem to matter which skin I was running) I watched 3 separate CPU intensive benchmark scores improve by 500%. I had observed a very noticable drop in speed while the benchmarks were running which had given me the first indication that there was a problem. And you don't even want to know what it did to super PI. GOOD benchmark suites are an indication of how well and fast your system is running overall. If a program is impacting heavily on these scores, you know that your system is being slowed down overall. Giving me links to benchmarks supplied by the same people who develop windowblinds is ridiculous, you think that they don't know what thier programs' shortcomings are? How difficult is it to not show this in a single benchmark, I know for a fact that there were some benchmarks in the COSBI suite that were unaffected by the program. This does not negate the fact that there were some that were (and not just by a little bit). If you want to close your eyes to this, that's your choice. I guess you could say you were wearing "windowblinders"
As far as facts to support my argument go, by uninstalling windowblinds (it didn't seem to matter which skin I was running) I watched 3 separate CPU intensive benchmark scores improve by 500%. I had observed a very noticable drop in speed while the benchmarks were running which had given me the first indication that there was a problem. And you don't even want to know what it did to super PI. GOOD benchmark suites are an indication of how well and fast your system is running overall. If a program is impacting heavily on these scores, you know that your system is being slowed down overall. Giving me links to benchmarks supplied by the same people who develop windowblinds is ridiculous, you think that they don't know what thier programs' shortcomings are? How difficult is it to not show this in a single benchmark, I know for a fact that there were some benchmarks in the COSBI suite that were unaffected by the program. This does not negate the fact that there were some that were (and not just by a little bit). If you want to close your eyes to this, that's your choice. I guess you could say you were wearing "windowblinders"
wombat_1
Reply #7 Monday, December 23, 2002 3:26 PM
Reply #7 Monday, December 23, 2002 3:26 PM
Most people who are using WB are quite happy with it, they know enough to switch from certain themes if these are hungry and as for 'benchmarks' .... who gives a Rodent's Rectum?
It is what works on ones own box and nothing to do with some Geeky rivet-counter's assumed perception of what constitutes a 'resource hog' ......
As for some paranoia about an 'Intel' conspiracy .
It is what works on ones own box and nothing to do with some Geeky rivet-counter's assumed perception of what constitutes a 'resource hog' ......
As for some paranoia about an 'Intel' conspiracy
.
joetheblow
Reply #8 Monday, December 23, 2002 4:30 PM
Reply #8 Monday, December 23, 2002 4:30 PM
Speaking of Resource hogs, is anybody having problems with Netscape? It makes my computer run so slow. I know Netscape has allot of stuff on it. Then again my computer is rather slow (Celron Chip - Heward/Packard. Just wondering if that happened to any one else.
Oh and as far as windowblinds is conserned, If you have another computer, try to instal it on there and see if it hogs stuff. I have found that different computer are set up differently. The Celron I mentioned previously runs ObjectBar animations far faster than my New Win2000 Laptop did.
Oh and as far as windowblinds is conserned, If you have another computer, try to instal it on there and see if it hogs stuff. I have found that different computer are set up differently. The Celron I mentioned previously runs ObjectBar animations far faster than my New Win2000 Laptop did.
Lecrayon
Reply #9 Monday, December 23, 2002 4:49 PM
Reply #9 Monday, December 23, 2002 4:49 PM
When I shut my windows I can hear the hedgehog sniff 
chichigirl46
Reply #10 Monday, December 23, 2002 5:13 PM
Reply #10 Monday, December 23, 2002 5:13 PM
joetheblow .... yep I have the same problem (HP), I stopped the "Backweb" junk from coming up on start and has helped alot....
Hey, Merry Christmas to you all
Hey, Merry Christmas to you all
Frogboy
Reply #11 Monday, December 23, 2002 5:55 PM
Reply #11 Monday, December 23, 2002 5:55 PM
Sounds like the benchmark people are doing something that affects WindowBlinds. At least given your particular choices of benchmarks.
Strangely, WinBench shows WB to be faster than msstyles. Maybe that's why companeis want to preload WindowBlinds.
Show me a benchmark that is currently available and widely used that shows WindowBlinds to be slower. That way the rest of us can try it out.
Strangely, WinBench shows WB to be faster than msstyles. Maybe that's why companeis want to preload WindowBlinds.
Show me a benchmark that is currently available and widely used that shows WindowBlinds to be slower. That way the rest of us can try it out.
Jafo
Reply #12 Monday, December 23, 2002 6:43 PM
Reply #12 Monday, December 23, 2002 6:43 PM
Maybe the benchmarker is like Norton Utilities....a crash-protector that crashes Windows better than Windows can do on its own....
JamMeister33
Reply #13 Monday, December 23, 2002 6:46 PM
Reply #13 Monday, December 23, 2002 6:46 PM
Jafo, Norton got rid of that "crash-protector" years ago...
It was a worthless piece of garbage.
It was a worthless piece of garbage.
JamMeister33
Reply #14 Monday, December 23, 2002 6:54 PM
Reply #14 Monday, December 23, 2002 6:54 PM
It seems like Norton Utilities gets worse with each new release..... 
YMark
Reply #15 Monday, December 23, 2002 7:51 PM
Reply #15 Monday, December 23, 2002 7:51 PM
I can't come up with a single reason to have anything with the name Symantic or Norton on my computer. Pure garbage.
Koasati
Reply #17 Monday, December 23, 2002 7:54 PM
Reply #17 Monday, December 23, 2002 7:54 PM
Benchmark, schmenchmark......... people that have been using WindowBlinds for years, are still using WindowBlinds...
That's the proof of the pudding.....
That's the proof of the pudding.....
SpeedTek
Reply #18 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:08 PM
Reply #18 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:08 PM
COSBI link is now posted on my site in the downloads section. http://members.shaw.ca/need4speed/ If you don't believe me, try it yourself. run it once with WB loaded and then unload and give it another go. An 80% drop in CPU math ops is not just rivet counting. That is a noticeable difference and will affect other programs overall. If you're happy using it, go ahead and keep using it, personally I saw adverse effects and will discontinue said use. Like I said before, there were aspects of the benchmarks that were unaffected by WB, but I prefer to have my system running the fastest possible if you choose to load yours down with eye candy: more power to ya. Kind of reminds me of those guys that slap a bunch of stickers and fancy wheels on their Civic, you know that clothes hanger wing makes the car much faster.
Don't take it personally guys (and gals) it's just one guys opinion, nothing more.
Don't take it personally guys (and gals) it's just one guys opinion, nothing more.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #19 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:26 PM
Reply #19 Monday, December 23, 2002 8:26 PM
Rubbish. WB has no drain on the processing power of the cpu at all. I use Seti as my benchmark (and so do the major manufacturers) and turn out work units in an average of 2h50m - up with the big Unix boxes. Using WB has no effect at all, if it did I would turn it off while processing work units - speed is all with Seti.
wombat_1
Reply #20 Monday, December 23, 2002 9:44 PM
Reply #20 Monday, December 23, 2002 9:44 PM
Over use of 'Bench Marking' aka Anal Retention. 
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, December 23, 2002 3:43 AM
WB will run fine on most systems with variations between skins, some of more complex skins certainly take a bit more grunt than the basic ones.
I've run the first versions of WB on a P1/200 with 32M of RAM .... under Win95.
No sweat.
"Benchmarks" mean nothing, the real test of any proggie is how it operates day to day.
You want a resource hog?
Try running Photoshop 7 and AutoFX DreamSuite together ..... now that's a test!